Now, it isn't necessarily the intent of MAC to talk about Missouri a lot... it just happens to be a place we like a lot. AND it is a state which could reasonably be considered as a good cross-section of America, which, until the last presidential election (when McCain won the state by a slim 4,000 votes), had been one of the most accurate bell-weathers for the county's political outcomes.
Missouri is also, not surprisingly, dealing with many of the same budget-crunching problems as most other states in the union. And being as I live here, I tend to notice more of the goings-on that occur as a result of the budget problems, and some of the proposed "solutions." MAC is all about trying to look at problems affecting ALL OF US, and talking about responsible ways of dealing with them, rather than clinging to ideology. Missouri's budgetary troubles and the solutions being bandied about are a perfect example of how competing ideologies are at loggerheads... and how at the end of the day it is the people who suffer.
Currently, the state has undergone a series of budget cuts, with more sure to be on the way. Money is tight, services are being slashed, state employees are being laid-off while seeing their benefits cut right and left. All the while, the state's Republican dominated senate is looking at experimenting with a complete tax overhaul, which would replace the state's income tax system with a heightened sales-tax, including taxes on services which are not currently taxed (such as child-care, and legal work).
It isn't just the state-budget which is feeling the squeeze -- Kansas City and St. Louis have been the center of continual crises, including a plan to close 26 schools due to education funding shortfalls, all while a multi-millionaire Rex Sinquefield (a retired investment banker) crusades against the Kansas City and St. Louis "earnings tax," claiming it drives people out of Missouri's most populated cities and across the borders to find work outside of the state.
It doesn't seem to matter to Sinquefield that the earnings tax is a significant source of both cities' budgetary incomes, and that a number of services are funded through the tax (40% of which is paid for by non-residents -- such as rich professional baseball and football players!) A handful of Missourians have made it a point to take on Sinquefield, as if he alone is the source of the state's troubles.
Sinquefield's charge against the tax is purely ideological. The state government refuses to look at ways of generating revenue in order to close the budget gap, relying purely opon cuts to services and state-employees' pay and benefits, despite having a multitude of options available at raising revenue. This is also purely ideological. It is estimated that by simply catching up with the times, Missouri could raise an additional $200 million by collecting sales taxes on internet purchases.
The one thing that is certain in all of this is that Missouri residents pay. Whether the state government takes away funding for essential services OR residents continue to pay an earning tax and a state income tax -- PEOPLE pay. If we eliminate the earnings tax in KC and St. Louis -- that revenue will be replaced by some other tax (most likely an increased property tax, BRILLIANT!!), which defeats the entire purpose of eliminating it to begin with, and probably hurts more than it helps.
Who pays for it when the state cuts state employee benefits, and state employees leave for greener pastures? Who pays for it when our schools consolidate into larger class-sizes because cities and school districts can't afford to hire more teachers? Answer: WE DO.
Hard times force us to make hard choices... but too often the ones who are making the hard choices aren't the ones feeling the effects. Rex Sinquefield doesn't feel a thing when a city is forced to make huge budget cuts... Governor Nixon and the state legislature don't feel a thing when the state employees are asked to take a hit to their pension plan or their 401k contributions... or do without a holiday. But we do.
The hard choice affects the people the most... because the people are the ones who pay for it one way or another. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that there is a middle road. Let's make cuts when it makes sense, but lets not close the book on looking for ways to raise revenue when it makes sense to do so. Let's not end an earnings tax without thinking about the consequences of doing so.
Simply taking the ideological stance of being against a tax for the sake of being against a tax doesn't solve anybody's problems. It doesn't address the issue of the NEED for funding police departments and fire departments and other essential public services. Simply making cuts without looking at raising revenue as an alternative smacks of short-sightedness and ideological rigidness.
This kind of decision-making does nothing to help solve a problem, and really isn't even decision-making. It simply says to Missouri's residents that we are going to pay for it by way of decreased services... whether that makes sense or not. The hard choice SHOULD be a choice, not some proscribed "solution" put forth by an ideology. Whatever happened to taking a look at EVERY possible solution, and weighing those options equally? THAT is a choice. It is a hard choice, but at least its a choice. So far, we've seen nothing but the short-sighted slashing of budgets, which equates to nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to budget short-falls.
Hard times call for hard choices. Missouri deserves a real choice in the matter.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Low Energy Costs = Low Motivation?
Missouri, you've just had it too good for too long. So why not try and stretch it a little bit longer?
Just prior to the New Year, a bipartisan panel of Missouri lawmakers released a report highlighting Missouri's energy future. The mission of the panel was to "Determine the best strategy to ensure a plentiful, affordable and clean supply of electricity that will meet the needs of the people and businesses of Missouri for the next twenty-five years and ensure that Missourians continue to benefit from low rates (emphasis mine)." Considering the Missouri has had it so good for their energy prices, it is only natural that they would want to continue this trend. However, the tension between clean energy and cheap energy is only going to increase.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Missouri residents have a kilowatt-hour cost for their power almost 25% cheaper than the national average, largely driven by a reliance on coal. Fully 80% of Missouri's power generation is fueled by coal. While this form of power generation is indeed the cheapest, it does have a few other attendant costs that have been so expertly socialized by the power industry, and reliance on this form of power for cheaper rates may prove problematic. If Washington pursues the form of cap-and-trade legislation currently bandied about in Congress, Missouri may face an increase in rates as the cost to pollute goes up.
This startling and unsurprising fact clearly influenced the authors of the report, who proceeded to lambast current federal plans as "devastating to Missouri's economic well-being," and glossed over forms of alternate energy with a circumspection and lack of depth that can only belie disinterest or outright ignorance. As a result, the four Democrats on the panel refused to sign the report. This should not be surprising- the struggle for cleaner energy, particularly at the state level, has proceeded largely along party lines throughout the country. However, this tussle hints at a wider problem that needs discussion as well.
The big question is, why should Missouri continue to enjoy energy rates that are lower than the national average? To me, this seems a prime example of what Tom Friedman refers to as part of the national epidemic of "privatizing the gains and socializing the losses." While Missouri residents get the benefit of cheap electricity, borne by the heavy use of cheap coal, neighbors downwind get the cost of increased emissions. While you can't blame Missouri for trying, in the coming era of climate awareness and pending legislation, it is foolhardy and indeed shortsighted for the state house to seek to maintain these low rates. In the report, the 80% reliance on coal as bandied about as a reason to get used to coal reliance. But lets look at the inverse of that. Is this reliance on coal a reflection of a lack of incentive of Missouri utilities to seek alternative power sources? Is the legislative regime demanding low rates stifling creativity and innovation in the Missouri power industry?
These are questions well worth exploring, but do not expect lawmakers to have any part in acknowledging inevitably higher rates. Consistently, the Missouri Public Service Commission has acted to keep rates low, often below the amounts needed by utilities. As fuel costs keep rising, expect the hard-up utilities to seek increasing to raise the rates in tandem.
The omissions and oversights of the report raise further eyebrows. I was surprised at the lack of attention paid to wind power in Missouri, given that this resource has been extensively studied at the state and federal level. While this form of power generation needs further investment and research, there is potential in this industry, and it curious that lawmakers ignored this potential source of jobs and prestige for the state.
Another factor worth considering, and one largely ignored by the panel, is the potential for alternative fuel sources and increased efficiency. Considering the low costs and high reward for increased efficiency measures, it is laughable that this was not pursued further by lawmakers as a policy goal. Perhaps this is because without the proper price incentives, consumers have no reason to reduce consumption. For a case study, refer to Juneau, Alaska. When faced with avalanches that knocked out transmission lines, threatening a five-fold increase in price, Juneau drastically cut its power consumption. When faced with truly crippling bills, Juneau made the adjustments. In a state such as Missouri, home to several large research universities, it is insulting to insinuate that the state is completely inadaptable.
In all, it seems that Jefferson City has laid out its priorities quite clearly: maintain the status quo, continue to rely on cheap coal, keep rates low, everybody happy. But the time for such policies has come and gone, and change is in the wind. One can only hope that the state house will not maintain such short-sighted policies in the face of change, and seek the opportunity presented by these changes.
Just prior to the New Year, a bipartisan panel of Missouri lawmakers released a report highlighting Missouri's energy future. The mission of the panel was to "Determine the best strategy to ensure a plentiful, affordable and clean supply of electricity that will meet the needs of the people and businesses of Missouri for the next twenty-five years and ensure that Missourians continue to benefit from low rates (emphasis mine)." Considering the Missouri has had it so good for their energy prices, it is only natural that they would want to continue this trend. However, the tension between clean energy and cheap energy is only going to increase.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Missouri residents have a kilowatt-hour cost for their power almost 25% cheaper than the national average, largely driven by a reliance on coal. Fully 80% of Missouri's power generation is fueled by coal. While this form of power generation is indeed the cheapest, it does have a few other attendant costs that have been so expertly socialized by the power industry, and reliance on this form of power for cheaper rates may prove problematic. If Washington pursues the form of cap-and-trade legislation currently bandied about in Congress, Missouri may face an increase in rates as the cost to pollute goes up.
This startling and unsurprising fact clearly influenced the authors of the report, who proceeded to lambast current federal plans as "devastating to Missouri's economic well-being," and glossed over forms of alternate energy with a circumspection and lack of depth that can only belie disinterest or outright ignorance. As a result, the four Democrats on the panel refused to sign the report. This should not be surprising- the struggle for cleaner energy, particularly at the state level, has proceeded largely along party lines throughout the country. However, this tussle hints at a wider problem that needs discussion as well.
The big question is, why should Missouri continue to enjoy energy rates that are lower than the national average? To me, this seems a prime example of what Tom Friedman refers to as part of the national epidemic of "privatizing the gains and socializing the losses." While Missouri residents get the benefit of cheap electricity, borne by the heavy use of cheap coal, neighbors downwind get the cost of increased emissions. While you can't blame Missouri for trying, in the coming era of climate awareness and pending legislation, it is foolhardy and indeed shortsighted for the state house to seek to maintain these low rates. In the report, the 80% reliance on coal as bandied about as a reason to get used to coal reliance. But lets look at the inverse of that. Is this reliance on coal a reflection of a lack of incentive of Missouri utilities to seek alternative power sources? Is the legislative regime demanding low rates stifling creativity and innovation in the Missouri power industry?
These are questions well worth exploring, but do not expect lawmakers to have any part in acknowledging inevitably higher rates. Consistently, the Missouri Public Service Commission has acted to keep rates low, often below the amounts needed by utilities. As fuel costs keep rising, expect the hard-up utilities to seek increasing to raise the rates in tandem.
The omissions and oversights of the report raise further eyebrows. I was surprised at the lack of attention paid to wind power in Missouri, given that this resource has been extensively studied at the state and federal level. While this form of power generation needs further investment and research, there is potential in this industry, and it curious that lawmakers ignored this potential source of jobs and prestige for the state.
Another factor worth considering, and one largely ignored by the panel, is the potential for alternative fuel sources and increased efficiency. Considering the low costs and high reward for increased efficiency measures, it is laughable that this was not pursued further by lawmakers as a policy goal. Perhaps this is because without the proper price incentives, consumers have no reason to reduce consumption. For a case study, refer to Juneau, Alaska. When faced with avalanches that knocked out transmission lines, threatening a five-fold increase in price, Juneau drastically cut its power consumption. When faced with truly crippling bills, Juneau made the adjustments. In a state such as Missouri, home to several large research universities, it is insulting to insinuate that the state is completely inadaptable.
In all, it seems that Jefferson City has laid out its priorities quite clearly: maintain the status quo, continue to rely on cheap coal, keep rates low, everybody happy. But the time for such policies has come and gone, and change is in the wind. One can only hope that the state house will not maintain such short-sighted policies in the face of change, and seek the opportunity presented by these changes.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Health Care Reform: View from the State Capitol
What Andrew said, about the lack of activity, is all too true. Moving on, no time to lose!
For most of this year, I simply haven't had the stomach to cover the health care debate, because so little of what has been discussed has been relevant, with discourse better suited for a demolition derby- combatants hurling their outdated auto bodies at their enemies, rending their own steel and rubber in the vain hopes of paralyzing the opponent. There's plenty of room for disagreement and discussion on the various health bills before the Congress, with wide-reaching policy and fiscal implications, and we're stuck on whether Nancy Pelosi is going to administratively execute your grandmother.
We, however, are not going to waste any more time on that. Personally, with all the discussion on whether states could/should opt out of the program, I'm getting interested in what implications would be in place for given states. Thankfully, we have just that for Kansas, thanks to Rep. Lynn Jenkins, who formally requested that the Kansas Health Policy Authority (KHPA) analyze both HR 3962 and S. 1796, both of which are currently making the rounds in Congress. The KHPA, for its part, stated their interest as “estimating the impact on the state is tied directly to the Agency’s role in making sure Kansas is positioned to benefit and succeed should reform pass the Congress.” Sounds pretty impartial to me. But just to make sure, they contracted an independent actuarial agency to do the numbers. What they found is striking.
Beyond all the talk of unfunded federal mandates and busted budgets, the KHPA found that Kansas actually stands to save money with either of these bills in force- caveats depending, of course. I'm going to try and break it down to some basics, but I strongly encourage you to read the KHPA's report for more detail.
Under “a fairly wide range of assumptions,” and keeping in mind the previously-mentioned caveats such as the size of Medicaid expansion from the 'woodwork effect,' the KHPA projects reductions in net state expenditures by at least $25-50 million per year under the Senate bill. Even on the low end, if projections are found to be woefully underestimating the need for medical care, savings of $10-20 million annually are expected.
The House bill presents significantly less savings to the Kansas budget, due in part to the mechanics of the bill, including a larger expansion of Medicaid. Nonetheless, KHPA estimates a savings of between $0 to $25 million per year. However, on the low end of the scale, there is the possibility that HR 3962 could cost Kansas up to $5-15 million annually.
The takeaway from this brief analysis is that the health care bills are far more complex than many of our Senators and Representatives would like us to believe. It would be undoubtedly a good thing to increase coverage while reducing costs. The question lies in whether these are actual reductions in cost, or a shifting of the burden from state budgets to federal ones. However, these specific numbers may be a moot point. At this time, these bills should be considered very much of a moving target; what emerges from negotiations, debate and conference committee could bear scarce resemblance to what the KHPA has analyzed in detail. Nonetheless, we would do well to look into these bills with great detail in the weeks and months ahead, and consider the impacts for each of our own states.
For most of this year, I simply haven't had the stomach to cover the health care debate, because so little of what has been discussed has been relevant, with discourse better suited for a demolition derby- combatants hurling their outdated auto bodies at their enemies, rending their own steel and rubber in the vain hopes of paralyzing the opponent. There's plenty of room for disagreement and discussion on the various health bills before the Congress, with wide-reaching policy and fiscal implications, and we're stuck on whether Nancy Pelosi is going to administratively execute your grandmother.
We, however, are not going to waste any more time on that. Personally, with all the discussion on whether states could/should opt out of the program, I'm getting interested in what implications would be in place for given states. Thankfully, we have just that for Kansas, thanks to Rep. Lynn Jenkins, who formally requested that the Kansas Health Policy Authority (KHPA) analyze both HR 3962 and S. 1796, both of which are currently making the rounds in Congress. The KHPA, for its part, stated their interest as “estimating the impact on the state is tied directly to the Agency’s role in making sure Kansas is positioned to benefit and succeed should reform pass the Congress.” Sounds pretty impartial to me. But just to make sure, they contracted an independent actuarial agency to do the numbers. What they found is striking.
Beyond all the talk of unfunded federal mandates and busted budgets, the KHPA found that Kansas actually stands to save money with either of these bills in force- caveats depending, of course. I'm going to try and break it down to some basics, but I strongly encourage you to read the KHPA's report for more detail.
Under “a fairly wide range of assumptions,” and keeping in mind the previously-mentioned caveats such as the size of Medicaid expansion from the 'woodwork effect,' the KHPA projects reductions in net state expenditures by at least $25-50 million per year under the Senate bill. Even on the low end, if projections are found to be woefully underestimating the need for medical care, savings of $10-20 million annually are expected.
The House bill presents significantly less savings to the Kansas budget, due in part to the mechanics of the bill, including a larger expansion of Medicaid. Nonetheless, KHPA estimates a savings of between $0 to $25 million per year. However, on the low end of the scale, there is the possibility that HR 3962 could cost Kansas up to $5-15 million annually.
The takeaway from this brief analysis is that the health care bills are far more complex than many of our Senators and Representatives would like us to believe. It would be undoubtedly a good thing to increase coverage while reducing costs. The question lies in whether these are actual reductions in cost, or a shifting of the burden from state budgets to federal ones. However, these specific numbers may be a moot point. At this time, these bills should be considered very much of a moving target; what emerges from negotiations, debate and conference committee could bear scarce resemblance to what the KHPA has analyzed in detail. Nonetheless, we would do well to look into these bills with great detail in the weeks and months ahead, and consider the impacts for each of our own states.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
To Set a Deadline or Not to Set a Deadline?
First off -- Yes, I realize that our postings and updates have been pretty much non-existent this year... I apologize (as I'm sure Pete does too!). I will try to make more time to write for 2010!
Now, on to the post!
Today, the Senate is conducting a hearing in discussion of the President's war strategy in Afghanistan, which he outlined last night in a speech before West Point cadets and a national television audience.
You can "watch" updates of the hearings posted here by the Washington Post online.
It seems that most of the questioning by Republicans in the Senate, led mostly by John McCain, center around the idea of having a date set to begin withdrawing troops. McCain says it "makes no sense" to have a date to withdraw.
I guess I am just a bit puzzled by this line of reasoning. In any endeavor when we are setting goals for ourselves, don't we typically attach those goals to a target date by which time we would like to have those goals accomplished? Why then would we not want to attach our goals in a war to a date? The questioners seem fixated on this date... and keep trying to get the witnesses to downplay the significance of it... But, really, what is the big deal?
The way I see it, we have certain goals we want to see accomplished there. We set a date by which time we want to have those goals accomplished. IF we have reached those goals, we begin the withdrawal of our troops.
And even then, the plan calls for the START of withdrawal. Nowhere has it been said how long this drawback will take. In fact, Defense Secretary Gates even says elsewhere in the hearing that he suspects there will be a "continuing presence" of US troops which will stay there to help with training, etc (just not combat).
McCain contends that there can't be a both a date set for withdrawal AND having the withdrawal set to conditions on the ground.
I really don't see why not. Anybody care to explain why it isn't possible to have a deadline in mind as to WHEN these goals should be accomplished? Doesn't setting a timeframe create a sense of urgency to achieve those goals, rather than leaving them open-ended?
Apparently this just doesn't make sense to the Senate.
Now, on to the post!
Today, the Senate is conducting a hearing in discussion of the President's war strategy in Afghanistan, which he outlined last night in a speech before West Point cadets and a national television audience.
You can "watch" updates of the hearings posted here by the Washington Post online.
It seems that most of the questioning by Republicans in the Senate, led mostly by John McCain, center around the idea of having a date set to begin withdrawing troops. McCain says it "makes no sense" to have a date to withdraw.
I guess I am just a bit puzzled by this line of reasoning. In any endeavor when we are setting goals for ourselves, don't we typically attach those goals to a target date by which time we would like to have those goals accomplished? Why then would we not want to attach our goals in a war to a date? The questioners seem fixated on this date... and keep trying to get the witnesses to downplay the significance of it... But, really, what is the big deal?
The way I see it, we have certain goals we want to see accomplished there. We set a date by which time we want to have those goals accomplished. IF we have reached those goals, we begin the withdrawal of our troops.
And even then, the plan calls for the START of withdrawal. Nowhere has it been said how long this drawback will take. In fact, Defense Secretary Gates even says elsewhere in the hearing that he suspects there will be a "continuing presence" of US troops which will stay there to help with training, etc (just not combat).
McCain contends that there can't be a both a date set for withdrawal AND having the withdrawal set to conditions on the ground.
I really don't see why not. Anybody care to explain why it isn't possible to have a deadline in mind as to WHEN these goals should be accomplished? Doesn't setting a timeframe create a sense of urgency to achieve those goals, rather than leaving them open-ended?
Apparently this just doesn't make sense to the Senate.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Geography of Job Loss
The Geography of Jobs
Posted using ShareThis
My mother sent me this the other day- a rather stunning graphical representation of the damage that has been wrought on the job market in this country over the past few years. I strongly suggest you check it out.
Posted using ShareThis
My mother sent me this the other day- a rather stunning graphical representation of the damage that has been wrought on the job market in this country over the past few years. I strongly suggest you check it out.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
We're Still Breathing: MAC and US Small Banks
Yes indeed we are; many apologies for the lack of activity over the past few months. Not a single post as we began our new presidential term- perhaps we were waiting with baited breath, as you no doubt were, to see how things were beginning to shape up. Or, perhaps we didn't have internet and got bit by the lazy bug. Who knows... either way, we're still calling, so hopefully others are still reading. Right now, I'm stuck in Kansas City MO, after missing a flight out last night by a few minutes. I'll be on here all day, and figured this would be a good time to kick the tires again, get re-started and re-launched.
So in a way, this post serves as a reminder, not unlike the one that small, community banks across the US are clamoring to remind customers. As detailed in a recent article by the New York Times, many community banks are on rock-solid footing as their larger, more speculative brethren are stumbling their way into federal ownership.
The difference between the two business model is so radically different from the larger investment banks, and by extension contemporary American capitalistm, that 'night and day' does not even suffice. The opposites are so polar as to be stunning:
It is indeed a sad, sad state of affairs when prudent economic practice, accountability to your neighbors and community, and sound decision making eying the long term has become uncommon and noteworthy. Did we all get caught up in the go-go-go of investment banks and credit cards and home loans so strongly that we left our wits behind us? It just might seem that way.
So I'm wondering- is it time to relocate our funds and savings from the massive banks to community banks? They are just as insured as the big ones, so that is not a worry. My only concern is, do they use the same services? My experience with a smaller bank (relatively speaking) was Commerce Bank, located in Missouri/Kansas/Iowa. I found it a great experience, with a true understanding of what their customers needed, prompt attention to concerns and strong support. If that is anything like what smaller banks have to offer, I'm on my way right now. My main bank just got bought out by Wachovia... and you better believe, I still have that Commerce account open.
So in a way, this post serves as a reminder, not unlike the one that small, community banks across the US are clamoring to remind customers. As detailed in a recent article by the New York Times, many community banks are on rock-solid footing as their larger, more speculative brethren are stumbling their way into federal ownership.
The difference between the two business model is so radically different from the larger investment banks, and by extension contemporary American capitalistm, that 'night and day' does not even suffice. The opposites are so polar as to be stunning:
To spend time with these Indiana community bankers is to step into an alternate universe, where everything sounds a little strange because it makes perfect sense. You hear things like, “If you don’t understand the risk you’re taking, don’t take it.” And, “We want to be around for decades, so we’re not focused on the next quarter.”
Forget “too big to fail.” These banks consider themselves too small to risk embarrassment. They are run by people who grew up in the towns where they work, and their main fear is getting into a financial jam that will shame them in the eyes of their neighbors.
The steep profits earned by national banks didn’t turn their heads in the last decade because they were inherently skeptical of double-digit growth rates.
“We like a nice, gentle, upward slope,” said Donald E. Goetz, the president of DeMotte State Bank, an 11-branch operation in the northwest part of Indiana.
“This kind of growth, like you see in the stock market” — Mr. Goetz ran his hand through the air, tracing the shape of a mountain range — “that doesn’t interest us.”
It is indeed a sad, sad state of affairs when prudent economic practice, accountability to your neighbors and community, and sound decision making eying the long term has become uncommon and noteworthy. Did we all get caught up in the go-go-go of investment banks and credit cards and home loans so strongly that we left our wits behind us? It just might seem that way.
So I'm wondering- is it time to relocate our funds and savings from the massive banks to community banks? They are just as insured as the big ones, so that is not a worry. My only concern is, do they use the same services? My experience with a smaller bank (relatively speaking) was Commerce Bank, located in Missouri/Kansas/Iowa. I found it a great experience, with a true understanding of what their customers needed, prompt attention to concerns and strong support. If that is anything like what smaller banks have to offer, I'm on my way right now. My main bank just got bought out by Wachovia... and you better believe, I still have that Commerce account open.
Monday, January 19, 2009
The State and Marriage
I just got through seeing a ridiculous news story on Yahoo! about a man being forced by the state of Michigan to either 1) pay the medical costs of his daughter's birth or 2) marry the mother.
At first, I was thinking maybe he is a dead-beat dad, and deserves to have the state breathing down his neck -- maybe not for 100% of the medical costs -- but at LEAST half of it. But after reading the article, you find out that he actually lives with the mother and daughter, and has a job (at a nursery, even!) in which he earns a paltry $8/hour... but at least he's trying. He and the mother intend to get married, but she wants it to be a nice wedding... and clearly they can't afford to pay for THAT right now.
When the daughter was born originally, the costs were paid by the state because the mother was on Medicaid. So, now, the state is trying to recoup their spending by forcing the father to pay-up!
This tactic was apparently proscribed by Michigan paternity law -- the law would waive the birthing costs for the father on condition he married the mother.
You wanna take a guess as to the reasoning behind the law? It is "an incentive to 'maintain the sanctity of marriage.'"
Now, maybe I'm being silly... but I don't see how on earth a law like this does anything of the sort. What business does the state have in telling a man and woman, "you need to get married NOW or else you're going to pay!" And how does THAT help to maintain the "sanctity of marriage?!?"
Couldn't this law do just the opposite? Couldn't this law promote marriages which are based on a financial whim other than what a marriage SHOULD be... things like... um... LOVE and committment?
What about dead-beat dads? Isn't it concievable that they could take advantage of a law like this... I'll leave it to you to imagine the details... but it COULD happen. So much for protecting the "sanctity of marriage."
I'm sorry... but I just get tired sometimes of hearing the government tell me about "protecting" something as sacred as marriage by trying to come up with laws which either force people to marry or PAY, or on the other hand, deny certain others the right to begin with.
The state, as far as I'm concerned, really has no business in deciding what has "sanctity" and what doesn't.
Maybe I'm wrong about this law... but the sad thing is that this particular story is talking about a man and woman who clearly are committed to each other and who are trying to make ends meet while raising a child. But now the state is trying to take $500 dollars a month from them unless they get married and produce a marriage license. Shouldn't we be trying to protect the sanctity of strong families, rather than being fixated on whether or not they are married on the state's timetable? Don't people's actions count for something more than a word being attached to a relationship?
Tell me I'm wrong (or right)! If you don't, you're not doing your part to uphold the ideals of this blog... and you should PAY me for that. Hmm... maybe the state's on to something after all!
At first, I was thinking maybe he is a dead-beat dad, and deserves to have the state breathing down his neck -- maybe not for 100% of the medical costs -- but at LEAST half of it. But after reading the article, you find out that he actually lives with the mother and daughter, and has a job (at a nursery, even!) in which he earns a paltry $8/hour... but at least he's trying. He and the mother intend to get married, but she wants it to be a nice wedding... and clearly they can't afford to pay for THAT right now.
When the daughter was born originally, the costs were paid by the state because the mother was on Medicaid. So, now, the state is trying to recoup their spending by forcing the father to pay-up!
This tactic was apparently proscribed by Michigan paternity law -- the law would waive the birthing costs for the father on condition he married the mother.
You wanna take a guess as to the reasoning behind the law? It is "an incentive to 'maintain the sanctity of marriage.'"
Now, maybe I'm being silly... but I don't see how on earth a law like this does anything of the sort. What business does the state have in telling a man and woman, "you need to get married NOW or else you're going to pay!" And how does THAT help to maintain the "sanctity of marriage?!?"
Couldn't this law do just the opposite? Couldn't this law promote marriages which are based on a financial whim other than what a marriage SHOULD be... things like... um... LOVE and committment?
What about dead-beat dads? Isn't it concievable that they could take advantage of a law like this... I'll leave it to you to imagine the details... but it COULD happen. So much for protecting the "sanctity of marriage."
I'm sorry... but I just get tired sometimes of hearing the government tell me about "protecting" something as sacred as marriage by trying to come up with laws which either force people to marry or PAY, or on the other hand, deny certain others the right to begin with.
The state, as far as I'm concerned, really has no business in deciding what has "sanctity" and what doesn't.
Maybe I'm wrong about this law... but the sad thing is that this particular story is talking about a man and woman who clearly are committed to each other and who are trying to make ends meet while raising a child. But now the state is trying to take $500 dollars a month from them unless they get married and produce a marriage license. Shouldn't we be trying to protect the sanctity of strong families, rather than being fixated on whether or not they are married on the state's timetable? Don't people's actions count for something more than a word being attached to a relationship?
Tell me I'm wrong (or right)! If you don't, you're not doing your part to uphold the ideals of this blog... and you should PAY me for that. Hmm... maybe the state's on to something after all!
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Losing Taxpayer Money to Detroit: It's Auto-matic!!!
So Detroit is bleeding money... so much so that GM and Chrysler could be bankrupt in a matter of months if Government action isn't taken to keep them afloat until they can re-tool.
This is something that was probably written on the wall for a while now. Even while GM was at the top of its game (which actually wasn't all that long ago: 2003, to be exact), several groups were concerned about the implications of where the sales were coming from: namely, trucks and SUV's. When gas was cheap (before the price surge... and subsequent drop) SUV's were THE big-ticket item. Everybody wanted one... and everyone was buying one.
Fast-forward 5 years, and nobody is buying them because nobody has the money. That is an outcome brought about by two factors: 1) the economy as a whole, and 2) the lack of foresight of auto-executives, who put all their eggs in the one SUV/Truck basket. But the two factors are both at work, make no mistake. Factor # 2 would likely not be an issue if the economy as a whole were in better shape. Remember that.
Now, here we are, watching our legislators in Washington debate whether or not to float short-term loans to the "Big 3" auto-makers in an attempt to help them "re-tool" their business before they run out of cash.
We have two sides to this issue -- Those who say something along these lines: "Detroit has not changed with the times, and has not been competitive with foreign auto-makers. Their current predicament is their own fault. We should let them go bankrupt!"; and those who say something along these lines: "Detroit is such an integral part in our economy, that letting these companies fail would have devestating consequences for so many Americans that we HAVE to do something to ensure their survival."
Now, granted, those are probably grossly over-simplified versions of the arguments, but this is a blog... if you want to get the full picture, you can find it elsewhere!
This argument has so many different factors, I could spend all day talking about it... but I want to point out something which I think is important to note: Whether or not Washington gives the $15 billion, we the taxpayers will lose $15 billion. The difference is whether we lose it in the short-term or the long-term. In the short-term, we lose it in the form of a loan to the auto-industry. In he long-term we lose it in the form of lost tax revenue (through sales taxes, income taxes, etc.), unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.
The difference also could be much worse for the long-term scenario...
Critics of the Big 3 like to point out that foreign-owned companies operating in the USA are doing just fine. America's "other" auto-industry is located in the South, and is largely non-union. These companies (like Kia, Honda, Toyota) are not having the troubles of the American auto-industry, and critics of the American industry point to the UAW and the costs of labor associated with the union's contract as being to blame for the difference.
This came to a head yesterday in the Senate, when Senate Republicans demanded that the UAW make steep wage cuts to bring them in-line with the foreign auto-makers located in the American south. At first glance, this line of reasoning by the Senate Republicans could make sense -- after all, if the problem truly IS the wage disparity between UAW workers and non-union workers, then bringing the cost of labor down for the Big 3 would clearly make them more competitive with the foreign auto-makers. Problem solved, right?
Not so fast. Remember what I said earlier -- GM was making their largest profits EVER just 5 years ago. The difference in wages has not dramatically changed since then... only our economic conditions as a whole. I posit that GM and the other US auto-makers would be doing just fine today if they had the foresight to produce more economically viable products for consumers like their foreign competitors.
This doesn't even touch on what would happen to the labor movement as a whole if UAW were to do what the Senate Republicans suggest. Here is a nice link from the Economic Policy Institute which talks about what exactly unions do for workers. Something which is easy to forget is that unions not only help the workers who are a part of the union, but also provide benefits for non-union workers -- because they set a standard for wages and compensation to which other employers have to respond.
IF the UAW were to agree to lower wage levels such as those of the foreign auto-makers, then it wouldn't be long before those foreign auto-makers would lower their starting wages considerably, as well. The dynamic between union and non-union would stay the same, but wages of all workers would drop.
This brings me to my question to you, and gets to a deeper philosophical outlook on confronting economic troubles. Is it more prudent to bring down wages in order to help business recover, or is it more prudent to ensure that workers are making a living wage and can afford to buy the things they need. After all -- if nobody has any money to spend, then they can't buy any products... and a vicious cycle ensues.
I am of the belief that it is DEMAND which drives the economy, not the other way around. When people have money in their pockets, they buy things. It's that simple. Lowering wages for all workers simply lowers their ability to buy products and services... which, in turn, lowers demand... and leads businesses to cut production (i.e. -- layoff workers.) This is NOT the way to go, and I am going to be squarely behind the UAW on this one.
A while back I wrote about the bailout of the financial services industry and my opposition to it. I am on the other side of the fence on this current issue, and find it perplexing that congress is so willing to hand over $700 Billion to banks and financial institutions, but balk at giving $14 billion to companies which actually employ hundreds of thousands of Americans and who actually build tangible products.
As John Stewart put it on The Daily Show: at least when Detroit loses money, we actually get a product out of it.
This is something that was probably written on the wall for a while now. Even while GM was at the top of its game (which actually wasn't all that long ago: 2003, to be exact), several groups were concerned about the implications of where the sales were coming from: namely, trucks and SUV's. When gas was cheap (before the price surge... and subsequent drop) SUV's were THE big-ticket item. Everybody wanted one... and everyone was buying one.
Fast-forward 5 years, and nobody is buying them because nobody has the money. That is an outcome brought about by two factors: 1) the economy as a whole, and 2) the lack of foresight of auto-executives, who put all their eggs in the one SUV/Truck basket. But the two factors are both at work, make no mistake. Factor # 2 would likely not be an issue if the economy as a whole were in better shape. Remember that.
Now, here we are, watching our legislators in Washington debate whether or not to float short-term loans to the "Big 3" auto-makers in an attempt to help them "re-tool" their business before they run out of cash.
We have two sides to this issue -- Those who say something along these lines: "Detroit has not changed with the times, and has not been competitive with foreign auto-makers. Their current predicament is their own fault. We should let them go bankrupt!"; and those who say something along these lines: "Detroit is such an integral part in our economy, that letting these companies fail would have devestating consequences for so many Americans that we HAVE to do something to ensure their survival."
Now, granted, those are probably grossly over-simplified versions of the arguments, but this is a blog... if you want to get the full picture, you can find it elsewhere!
This argument has so many different factors, I could spend all day talking about it... but I want to point out something which I think is important to note: Whether or not Washington gives the $15 billion, we the taxpayers will lose $15 billion. The difference is whether we lose it in the short-term or the long-term. In the short-term, we lose it in the form of a loan to the auto-industry. In he long-term we lose it in the form of lost tax revenue (through sales taxes, income taxes, etc.), unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.
The difference also could be much worse for the long-term scenario...
Critics of the Big 3 like to point out that foreign-owned companies operating in the USA are doing just fine. America's "other" auto-industry is located in the South, and is largely non-union. These companies (like Kia, Honda, Toyota) are not having the troubles of the American auto-industry, and critics of the American industry point to the UAW and the costs of labor associated with the union's contract as being to blame for the difference.
This came to a head yesterday in the Senate, when Senate Republicans demanded that the UAW make steep wage cuts to bring them in-line with the foreign auto-makers located in the American south. At first glance, this line of reasoning by the Senate Republicans could make sense -- after all, if the problem truly IS the wage disparity between UAW workers and non-union workers, then bringing the cost of labor down for the Big 3 would clearly make them more competitive with the foreign auto-makers. Problem solved, right?
Not so fast. Remember what I said earlier -- GM was making their largest profits EVER just 5 years ago. The difference in wages has not dramatically changed since then... only our economic conditions as a whole. I posit that GM and the other US auto-makers would be doing just fine today if they had the foresight to produce more economically viable products for consumers like their foreign competitors.
This doesn't even touch on what would happen to the labor movement as a whole if UAW were to do what the Senate Republicans suggest. Here is a nice link from the Economic Policy Institute which talks about what exactly unions do for workers. Something which is easy to forget is that unions not only help the workers who are a part of the union, but also provide benefits for non-union workers -- because they set a standard for wages and compensation to which other employers have to respond.
IF the UAW were to agree to lower wage levels such as those of the foreign auto-makers, then it wouldn't be long before those foreign auto-makers would lower their starting wages considerably, as well. The dynamic between union and non-union would stay the same, but wages of all workers would drop.
This brings me to my question to you, and gets to a deeper philosophical outlook on confronting economic troubles. Is it more prudent to bring down wages in order to help business recover, or is it more prudent to ensure that workers are making a living wage and can afford to buy the things they need. After all -- if nobody has any money to spend, then they can't buy any products... and a vicious cycle ensues.
I am of the belief that it is DEMAND which drives the economy, not the other way around. When people have money in their pockets, they buy things. It's that simple. Lowering wages for all workers simply lowers their ability to buy products and services... which, in turn, lowers demand... and leads businesses to cut production (i.e. -- layoff workers.) This is NOT the way to go, and I am going to be squarely behind the UAW on this one.
A while back I wrote about the bailout of the financial services industry and my opposition to it. I am on the other side of the fence on this current issue, and find it perplexing that congress is so willing to hand over $700 Billion to banks and financial institutions, but balk at giving $14 billion to companies which actually employ hundreds of thousands of Americans and who actually build tangible products.
As John Stewart put it on The Daily Show: at least when Detroit loses money, we actually get a product out of it.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Energy Plans Running Dry- Problem or Deliverance?
So the word from the Los Angeles Times today comes down from San Pierre, Indiana, a town of 156 in the northwestern part of the state. Prior to the credit crunch and economic slowdown, San Pierre was due to be the site of an ethanol processing plant, promising jobs, income and opportunity to a town that is rapidly losing population to nearby cities. Instead, the credit crunch and wildly fluctuating commodities markets have left the plans dead in the water:But last month, the developers of the San Pierre plant announced that the $62-million deal was dead. Banks involved in the project had cut off their lines of credit. Desperate calls to dozens of other financial institutions led to the same answer: No.
Already battered by other market forces, the ethanol industry has been hit hard by the banking world's credit crunch, and the seemingly bright future of corn-based biofuel has been cast in doubt.
In Pratt, Kan., the grinding mill machinery stands silent inside the Gateway Ethanol plant. It was open for less than six months before running out of money, and there were no bank loans available to keep it going. The firm recently filed for bankruptcy.
In Royal, Ill., developers abandoned efforts to build a plant there and in six other locations, citing an inability to get financing. Plants have been shuttered, or plans for new ones halted, in Mead, Neb.; Belle Fourche, S.D.; Blairstown, Iowa; and Melrose, Minn.
It's sad, no doubt about it. I never like to hear stories about dreams postponed or canceled, especially when opportunities for some of these communities are few and far between. But I have to ask this question- are these industrial outlets truly the kind of development that rural America needs?
For all the promise of being a green industry and an answer to the fuel crisis (although who worries about that now with prices so low?), let's call ethanol processing for what it is- extractive industry. It is dependent on processing raw materials into a more finished form by way of labor- and capital-intensive industrial processes. There are significant byproducts to this process, such as large amounts of emissions and regions turned into monocultures, as well as massive inputs such as fuel to operate harvesters and chemicals for fertilizer. What is the difference between that and any other extractive industry? Mining, logging, fishing? They all make use of raw materials in a low-skill, relatively low-wage job.
Ethanol production is more of the same. It is clear how many of these projects have turned out in America- witness the ghost towns that are shells of their former selves once the boom has gone bust, littered throughout the west, watching commodities prices to turn their resources profitable again. Much like other extractive industries, ethanol production also needs intense government intervention to turn a profit. So let's put to bed the notion that ethanol is some new, green-collar wonderland. It's what we call 'same sh*t, different day.'
I'm not keeping score, but that's quite a few strikes against this plan.
It just seems to me, from where I sit, that we are hitching our horse to the wrong wagon, both as a country and as individual towns. As towns, we must be able to find other ways to spur economic growth. Sure, this is easy to say; in times of trouble, you can't fault someone for jumping at an opportunity as it comes along. To tell the truth, I kind of feel like an ass for saying it. But if we are going to get serious about building our rural communities into self-sufficient ones that are players in a regional and global economy, we have to move past the outmoded models of development for decades past.
So I'm pulling for you, San Pierre, and everyone else that is hurting in this bust. It's going to be hard. But I also want to try, TRY, to see this as an opportunity to reimagine ourselves and our various locales, wherever you find yourself, loyal reader, to compete in the new century and new economy. We can't do that if we stick to the old models.
Do I have ideas, you ask? Sure. They aren't perfect, but what ideas are? If I were the government, I would invest in electronic communications infrastructure for a lot of places in the USA. From where I sit, a lot of these high tech workers would jump at the chance to live in a place like San Pierre, to live away from the madness and heat and crowding of the city high-tech hubs. They would be perfect locations for continuity of operations sites, if the connections could be built reliably enough. Imagine the jobs available both at these facilities, and the multiplier effects on the local economy.
That's my humble idea off the top of my head. If you have anything else... or want to call me out... well, fire away!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Our New Electoral Map
So, after our collective exhale, I think it is interesting to look a little deeper into some of the electoral trends we witnessed this last Tuesday.
I ran across this very cool map on NPR's website. What is does is this: It takes our map of the USA and turns it into a cartogram -- a representation of population rather than geographic size.
What is striking to me (but not surprising, being that we here at Mid-America Calling are all about bi-partisianship!) is the amount of purple you see.
We truly are a nation of people who want to see our country be all it can be... we may have differences of opinion on how to make it so, but as you can see from the map, our population is NOT divided by partisian bickering.
Let's hope our elected leaders take that cue, and get to work with a bi-partisian spirit.
I ran across this very cool map on NPR's website. What is does is this: It takes our map of the USA and turns it into a cartogram -- a representation of population rather than geographic size.
What is striking to me (but not surprising, being that we here at Mid-America Calling are all about bi-partisianship!) is the amount of purple you see.
We truly are a nation of people who want to see our country be all it can be... we may have differences of opinion on how to make it so, but as you can see from the map, our population is NOT divided by partisian bickering.
Let's hope our elected leaders take that cue, and get to work with a bi-partisian spirit.
Monday, November 10, 2008
OK, Collective Exhale...
A couple days late, sure, but isn't that symbolic in itself? It's been a pretty wild and wooly election, one of the most hardly fought in history, and to be perfectly honest I could not tear my eyes away from it in order to update this ole project. Sorry. But truth be told, not sure if we can compete with the big dogs, trying as we are to refrain from partisanship, which is kind of the order of the day.
That said:
It is truly a fantastic time to be an American. For a long time now, our mainstream media has been pummeling us with assumptions, that the result on Election Day would never have been possible with a divided, latently racist, lazy, disinterested and moronic electorate. We've been told that we'd never elect a black man. We've been told that he's scary, he's a mystery, that he has secret plans and secret friends and is definitely not a friend of us. Even his name became ambiguously threatening.
But like Fox News' Brit Hume said, all those accusations didn't add up to what we saw on the screen. Not by a longshot. And by a notable margin, we the people showed those that make a living telling us about ourselves that they really don't know a damn thing. People came together across ideological, racial and class divides to cast a vote in favor of a truly amorphous idea- change. What does it mean? There's as many answers to that as there are people. But with that vote, Americans nationwide put their foot down in favor of change, and in essence declared their great faith in themselves and their countrymen to come together. We demand it of our government, and each other, so that we all may prosper.
For all the subplots and deeper meanings, that's what this election meant to me. It meant an open opportunity to get to work. It means a president who is open and willing to hearing what everyone has to say, as opposed to one who seeks the approval of 50% plus one. If you have an idea, the president-elect wants to hear it. So bend his ear. Let him know. We are all in this together, now. It's all on us.
So I ask you all, let's get ready to roll up our sleeves. Don't retreat back into the living room, whether you knocked on doors for either candidate, in self-satisfied elation or bitterness. We need to get to work. There's a lot of things that need fixing in our beautiful land, and there is no time to lose. I, for one, am chomping at the bit to get down with it. Let's go.
That said:
It is truly a fantastic time to be an American. For a long time now, our mainstream media has been pummeling us with assumptions, that the result on Election Day would never have been possible with a divided, latently racist, lazy, disinterested and moronic electorate. We've been told that we'd never elect a black man. We've been told that he's scary, he's a mystery, that he has secret plans and secret friends and is definitely not a friend of us. Even his name became ambiguously threatening.
But like Fox News' Brit Hume said, all those accusations didn't add up to what we saw on the screen. Not by a longshot. And by a notable margin, we the people showed those that make a living telling us about ourselves that they really don't know a damn thing. People came together across ideological, racial and class divides to cast a vote in favor of a truly amorphous idea- change. What does it mean? There's as many answers to that as there are people. But with that vote, Americans nationwide put their foot down in favor of change, and in essence declared their great faith in themselves and their countrymen to come together. We demand it of our government, and each other, so that we all may prosper.
For all the subplots and deeper meanings, that's what this election meant to me. It meant an open opportunity to get to work. It means a president who is open and willing to hearing what everyone has to say, as opposed to one who seeks the approval of 50% plus one. If you have an idea, the president-elect wants to hear it. So bend his ear. Let him know. We are all in this together, now. It's all on us.
So I ask you all, let's get ready to roll up our sleeves. Don't retreat back into the living room, whether you knocked on doors for either candidate, in self-satisfied elation or bitterness. We need to get to work. There's a lot of things that need fixing in our beautiful land, and there is no time to lose. I, for one, am chomping at the bit to get down with it. Let's go.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
National Gas Prices
I just stumbled across this tool for getting a comparison of gas prices between locations in the US. Hopefully not sounding like a shill, Gas Buddy has the linked "temperature map" so you can gauge how high the prices are in your area. The map is remarkably interactive, and you just might learn something that can save you some money. For instance, Kansas City has one of the lowest price/gallon costs in the nation- indeed, most the of Great Plains is uniformly cheap. In comparison, North Carolina and Georgia come in almost uniformly expensive, nearing the $4.00/gallon mark.
Here's hoping you find this a useful or interesting tool. I know I am. Let's see if I can make that move to KC, start saving some money.
Here's hoping you find this a useful or interesting tool. I know I am. Let's see if I can make that move to KC, start saving some money.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Mid-American Musings, Vol. 1
OK, I've been MIA for quite some time, I know. Been out to Utah, Colorado, Kansas and Missouri since I last posted, killed a computer, bought a computer, was shoveled a heavier workload at the job, and finally got internet reconnected. Excuses excuses. Please accept this meager post, with the aims of stoking the fires and getting back to work. Thanks all.
I had a discussion with a friend last night about... truthfully, I don't remember what, but somehow the topic of whaling came up. He explained to me that he didn't care what happened to whales, because the issue didn't directly impact him, and what has a whale ever done for him anyways? I pointed out that the whaling industry was integral to building several industries and markets in its heyday, be it shipbuilding, foundries, undergarments or perfume, but that's neither here nor there. I was rather surprised at his flippant attitude in dismissing the issue because it wasn't a "direct impact" on his daily life. A direct impact? What is that, exactly?
I'm going to submit that everything impacts you. When our neighbors cannot pay their mortgages, does it not affect you? Does the prospect of abandoned homes, a gutted neighborhood and a hollowed-out community sound appealing? When graduation rates go down, the available pool of labor shrinks, and either the local economy shrinks with it or imports labor from elsewhere. What does this mean for your town? You can't just tighten up a cordon around your life and ignore things because they are not in-your-face issues. Problems, much like opportunities, are never contained in a little sphere, only touching those that deal with them directly. Think of them as gases, following the winds, wafting over everything they come across, leaving a residue or a smell to remember them by, be it poisonous or pleasing.
It's not a big deal for me if you are pro- or anti- something; we're all entitled to our opinions and our conceptions of the world we want to live in. The point of contention for me is taking up an issue based on how heavily it directly impacts you. Naturally, we will feel most passionate about issues that we deal with daily, much as we care much more for our family than the wellbeing of some stranger on the street. This is unavoidable, and if you weren't like this, I'd say you were a little off in the head. But here is the question- does it really not affect you? When you write off some pressing social issue, be it schools, public safety, healthcare, any of the non-sexy causes that are paid lip-service by politicians, are you really insulated from the impacts? What is the standard of 'impact?'
As much as we want to trumpet the ideal of total individuality, that someone else's problems are never our own, we cannot ignore what happens in our circles of family, friends and community. Generally speaking, we know problems when we see them, and know that we want to dispose of them. We need to have a hope for the world, and work towards achieving it, be it through doing our jobs, raising our families, voting, getting involved in the community, or volunteering. My conception of the world is an ideal, I'll be the first to tell you, but it is definitely worth working and fighting for. It's based on the idea that if you do wrong by my friend, my neighbor, my community, you do wrong by me, because we're all in this together. Everything is an impact. It all needs to be addressed.
What does your ideal world look like? Inquiring minds want to know, or to at least raise the question in your heads, for you to chew on. Have at it.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Censorship in America
Project Censored has recently published its list of the top 25 censored stories for 2009 (yeah, I don't know why they say 2009, but whatever...)
You can see the list here: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/
You can see the list here: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Bailing Out on the American People
Now, I'm no economic expert, which may become painfully apparent with what I'm about to suggest.
But, I would like somebody to tell me why something like the following wouldn't work better than the current plan by Treasury Secretary Paulson. Essentially, Paulson wants the US Taxpayers to put up something like $700 billion to put into his hands, so that he can use somewhat cryptic means to fix the problem in our financial markets.
He says Congress should make this "clean and quick." That, to me, sounds like he's wanting a rubber stamp put on a plan with very little stipulations, and very little details on how this plan will actually be a wise move for American taxpayers.
So, here's what I'm thinking, and I want you all to tell me why it wouldn't work (or at least have as much a chance of working as a full-on bailout of moronic financial investment banks on Wall St.)
Firstly, though, for a good refresher on what has led up to this crises, see the following article from the Washington Post.
If the American taxpayers are going to be asked to foot a $700 billion dollar bill no matter what, why not target that money to where it is going to do the most good? Why not use a large chunk of that money to pay down the principle on so many of these bad mortgages these investment banks dolled out? Doing this would 1) lower the balance on these mostly worthless 'assets' held by all the investors out there who grabbed up these mortgages, thereby raising their value somewhat; 2) it would greatly LOWER the mortgage payments that American families would be spending each and every month to pay off their homes, putting more money directly into the hands of American taxpayers and providing a stimulus to the economy.
Secondly, LET THESE IRRESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT BANKS FAIL!! Recklessness, irresponsibility, and in some cases, outright fraud should not be tolerated or rewarded by a government taxpayer bail-out. Period.
Now, I understand that making sure people have the ability to borrow money is important. If solvency is not restored then we can see small businesses fail all across the country, which would have a rundown effect throughout every level of this economy. So, what I suggest is that we instead inject all this money into whatever RESPONSIBLE investment banks still exist (if there are any), rather than the ones which have shown their inability to run a solvent institution.
This serves two purposes -- it gets rid of these banks which have ruined confidence in the financial system AND makes sure that money is still available for people who need loans by helping the smaller, more responsible investment firms to pick up the slack left behind by the failing giants of the industry. As an added bonus, people can be confident knowing that only the responsible banks are left, and have more assurances that they would be borrowing and/or investing in assets properly screened.
To me, this makes FAR more sense than what is being proposed by Secretary Paulson. But, maybe I'm just an economic novice and missing something. I just don't see how giving a $700 billion check to the executive branch with no-strings attached is a responsible use of taxpayer money.
Now, start telling me why I'm wrong...
But, I would like somebody to tell me why something like the following wouldn't work better than the current plan by Treasury Secretary Paulson. Essentially, Paulson wants the US Taxpayers to put up something like $700 billion to put into his hands, so that he can use somewhat cryptic means to fix the problem in our financial markets.
He says Congress should make this "clean and quick." That, to me, sounds like he's wanting a rubber stamp put on a plan with very little stipulations, and very little details on how this plan will actually be a wise move for American taxpayers.
So, here's what I'm thinking, and I want you all to tell me why it wouldn't work (or at least have as much a chance of working as a full-on bailout of moronic financial investment banks on Wall St.)
Firstly, though, for a good refresher on what has led up to this crises, see the following article from the Washington Post.
If the American taxpayers are going to be asked to foot a $700 billion dollar bill no matter what, why not target that money to where it is going to do the most good? Why not use a large chunk of that money to pay down the principle on so many of these bad mortgages these investment banks dolled out? Doing this would 1) lower the balance on these mostly worthless 'assets' held by all the investors out there who grabbed up these mortgages, thereby raising their value somewhat; 2) it would greatly LOWER the mortgage payments that American families would be spending each and every month to pay off their homes, putting more money directly into the hands of American taxpayers and providing a stimulus to the economy.
Secondly, LET THESE IRRESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT BANKS FAIL!! Recklessness, irresponsibility, and in some cases, outright fraud should not be tolerated or rewarded by a government taxpayer bail-out. Period.
Now, I understand that making sure people have the ability to borrow money is important. If solvency is not restored then we can see small businesses fail all across the country, which would have a rundown effect throughout every level of this economy. So, what I suggest is that we instead inject all this money into whatever RESPONSIBLE investment banks still exist (if there are any), rather than the ones which have shown their inability to run a solvent institution.
This serves two purposes -- it gets rid of these banks which have ruined confidence in the financial system AND makes sure that money is still available for people who need loans by helping the smaller, more responsible investment firms to pick up the slack left behind by the failing giants of the industry. As an added bonus, people can be confident knowing that only the responsible banks are left, and have more assurances that they would be borrowing and/or investing in assets properly screened.
To me, this makes FAR more sense than what is being proposed by Secretary Paulson. But, maybe I'm just an economic novice and missing something. I just don't see how giving a $700 billion check to the executive branch with no-strings attached is a responsible use of taxpayer money.
Now, start telling me why I'm wrong...
Monday, August 18, 2008
Mid-America in the Saddle(back)
I don't know how many of you had the opportunity to watch the "Faith Forum" hosted by pastor Rick Warren (of "The Purpose Driven Life" fame) at his Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA on Saturday, but I hope you did. If not, you can catch it online here, courtesy of CNN.
Warren began the forum by making a point which is too often forgotten during the height of election-year politics: Both candidates are patriots who love their country. This is a point which we here at Mid-America Calling try to make ourselves. It was refreshing to see coverage of an event which was designed to simply inform viewers of the candidates and their positions on issues, rather than a competition in which each candidate is hoping the other slips up, or is looking for opportunities to cry "gotcha!"
So, for two hours (one for each candidate) we got to hear them talk about a range of issues which will all come into play during a Presidential administration of either - leadership, abortion, their view on "evil" and what to do about it, the moral failings of their own lives and that of America, Supreme Court justices, etc.
So, for the sake of conversation, I thought it would be fun to talk about one of these issues here at the ol' blog, and see where it goes.
My topic of choice: Abortion.
The question in the faith forum was having to do with the moment at which an embryo is entitled to human rights... in other words, when does "life" begin? Or when is an embryo a full-fledged human being?
The Obama answer, described by pundits as "nuanced" repeatedly, was actually rather simply put: "It's above my pay grade." He went on to describe how his Presidency would be concerned with how to lower the number of abortions which take place, and talked about his willingness to limit late-term abortions provided there was an exception for the mother's health. His answer seemed rather cautiously accepted by the crowd at the Saddleback Church.
McCain, on the other hand, drew wild applause with his response: that human rights are required "at the moment of conception." He went on to tell the crowd about his long record of being pro-life, and that his Presidency would have "pro-life policies."
Now, here's where it gets dicey... While McCain's answer is a simple one, the practicality of it is not so simple. TIME takes a look at how this view would have far-reaching effects beyond the obvious availability of abortions. What about the period of time between when an egg is fertilized and when it actually implants in the womb and begins growing? As the article points out:
"all kinds of embryo research become questionable, starting with the stem-cell research McCain says he favors. Couples who undergo in vitro fertilization and then choose not to implant all the embryos are surely violating the rights of those that are discarded or frozen. Some forms of contraception, such as IUDs and the morning-after pill, would presumably be illegal if they affect the ability of an egg to implant. Abortion opponents contend that the birth control pill itself, while designed to prevent ovulation so no egg is fertilized in the first place, may also have the effect of blocking implantation of any egg that sneaks through. Suddenly, a whole range of reproductive choices comes into question."
As I think about this issue, I am reminded of Rick Warren's assertion that it is important not to "demonize" those who think differently than ourselves. There seems to be no other issue in America where that is so easy to do as the abortion issue. As, Obama pointed out in his answer, the "pro-choice" standpoint isn't a "pro-abortion" stance, by any means. The goal is to reduce abortions in America -- the debate should be about how to do that.
Clearly, a simplistic answer about how human rights begin "at the moment of conception" sounds terrific for those who identify as "pro-life." But the reality of the situation is that the policies this viewpoint would enact would almost undoubtedly lead to an INCREASE in unwanted pregnancies... which, after all, is the reason we have people seeking abortions to begin with.
Pro-choice and Pro-life proponents need to understand that the age-old debate has not changed the reality on the ground... and it won't, until both sides focus on the common goal of lowering the amount of abortions which take place, and figuring out how to bring that goal about.
To me, having a short answer to a complex problem is not a good thing... The answer to this issue is one which requires far more work and thought than simply saying "life begins at conception, therefore abortions and anything else which hinders the growth of life is illegal."
So, that's my piece! Start calling!
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Pick'n a Plan and Stick'n to It
First of all, let me say I'm sorry for the delay in any new content from my fingertips. It's been a pretty busy month for me -- traveling for work training, more work, traveling home to hunt for a house, buying a house (yippee!!), and traveling back to work... and more work.
So, it should come as no surprise that I am still writing about the same topic I was writing about a month ago: Energy.
And why not? Each and every one of us are intimately connected to this problem of energy consumption simply by the way we live our lives. We've all heard over and over by now about how each of us can individually make changes in our lives and influence our overall national consumption... well, while that is certainly true, it should also come as no surprise that some have more they can do than others.
One of those people is a man named T. Boone Pickens (possibly nicknamed T-Bone). T. Boone has some resources, being a billionaire oil man. But, more importantly, he's got a plan (something we here at Mid-America Calling enjoy). It can be found here: http://www.pickensplan.com/
Now, I don't know whether I'm sold on the plan yet or not... but at least he's got one. He's right in saying that we are a country addicted to oil, and we can't drill our way out of that problem. And he's right to be looking for solutions to this multi-faceted problem. He does a good job of pointing out just how this issue radiates throughout the economy, as well.
$700 billion dollars a year is currently being spent on importing foreign oil to meet our demands for fueling our cars and trucks. That's a ton of money going elsewhere. That means it's not being spent on our own infrastructure... it's not being spent on our schools. It isn't being spent on a viable solution to our health-care crisis. You get the idea...
Pickens' plan calls for utilizing the wind of our own great plains. He calls our geographic mid-America the "Saudi Arabia of wind power." And while the cost to expand our wind power production to 25% of our national need is expensive -- something like $1.2 trillion -- it is a one-time price paid up-front, and pales in comparison to the price of continuing to spend $700 billion each year to foreign nations.
Now, obviously adding wind power production doesn't help power our cars... so how exactly does this lower our dependence on foreign oil? Pickens has something else in mind. By increasing wind power, we free up something else for our cars -- natural gas. Natural Gas currently provides 22% of our current electrical power in the U.S. at a much cheaper cost per gallon than we spend on gasoline. The idea is that by replacing our current electrical use of natural gas with wind power, we can use the cleaner burning, cheaper natural gas to fuel our vehicles. Makes sense, right?
T. Bone touts the price of natural gas as being less than a dollar per gallon in much of the country, which would certainly be a welcome change from spending $4.00 at the pump for gasoline. He also touts the difference in emissions from natural gas as opposed to petrol. He's right, yet again, on both counts.
So, what is the hesitation? Well, firstly we have to think about what this does if his plan is put into full-swing. Just off the top of my head I can tell you that the relatively low cost of natural gas won't stay that low for long. Imagine if every corner gas station had natural gas pumps. Demand shoots through the roof and we're no longer able to claim that it's a cheaper alternative to gasoline.
This isn't even taking into account what it would do to other uses of natural gas -- such as heating homes during the winter months. Many Americans are already struggling to pay heating bills in the dead of winter... and having the demand for that natural gas spread out to running our cars and trucks won't do anything to help those folks.
But, perhaps the lowered demand for electricity production will ultimately balance out the rising demand for vehicle fuel. Maybe, maybe not... but it's definitely an issue which his plan doesn't take any steps to address.
But, at least ol' T-bone does recognize that his plan is only a temporary solution to a problem which needs a lot more work. He states that the plan can "buy us time" until we work out better and cheaper ways of powering our everyday lives. And as far as band-aids go, this one looks to be one of the better plans out there.
I recommend checking out the plan, and if you like what you see, sign up on his site! Forget that T-bone has considerable holdings in Natural Gas and stands to make a ton of money off it... Good ideas should be rewarded, and at least he's got a level of foresight to realize that drilling in ANWR isn't going to make a lick's bit of difference. And diverting $700 billion a year from foreign countries to American infrastructure and jobs can't hurt, either.
So, I'm pickin' Pickens' plan... and stickin' to it... for now.
So, it should come as no surprise that I am still writing about the same topic I was writing about a month ago: Energy.
And why not? Each and every one of us are intimately connected to this problem of energy consumption simply by the way we live our lives. We've all heard over and over by now about how each of us can individually make changes in our lives and influence our overall national consumption... well, while that is certainly true, it should also come as no surprise that some have more they can do than others.
One of those people is a man named T. Boone Pickens (possibly nicknamed T-Bone). T. Boone has some resources, being a billionaire oil man. But, more importantly, he's got a plan (something we here at Mid-America Calling enjoy). It can be found here: http://www.pickensplan.com/
Now, I don't know whether I'm sold on the plan yet or not... but at least he's got one. He's right in saying that we are a country addicted to oil, and we can't drill our way out of that problem. And he's right to be looking for solutions to this multi-faceted problem. He does a good job of pointing out just how this issue radiates throughout the economy, as well.
$700 billion dollars a year is currently being spent on importing foreign oil to meet our demands for fueling our cars and trucks. That's a ton of money going elsewhere. That means it's not being spent on our own infrastructure... it's not being spent on our schools. It isn't being spent on a viable solution to our health-care crisis. You get the idea...
Pickens' plan calls for utilizing the wind of our own great plains. He calls our geographic mid-America the "Saudi Arabia of wind power." And while the cost to expand our wind power production to 25% of our national need is expensive -- something like $1.2 trillion -- it is a one-time price paid up-front, and pales in comparison to the price of continuing to spend $700 billion each year to foreign nations.
Now, obviously adding wind power production doesn't help power our cars... so how exactly does this lower our dependence on foreign oil? Pickens has something else in mind. By increasing wind power, we free up something else for our cars -- natural gas. Natural Gas currently provides 22% of our current electrical power in the U.S. at a much cheaper cost per gallon than we spend on gasoline. The idea is that by replacing our current electrical use of natural gas with wind power, we can use the cleaner burning, cheaper natural gas to fuel our vehicles. Makes sense, right?
T. Bone touts the price of natural gas as being less than a dollar per gallon in much of the country, which would certainly be a welcome change from spending $4.00 at the pump for gasoline. He also touts the difference in emissions from natural gas as opposed to petrol. He's right, yet again, on both counts.
So, what is the hesitation? Well, firstly we have to think about what this does if his plan is put into full-swing. Just off the top of my head I can tell you that the relatively low cost of natural gas won't stay that low for long. Imagine if every corner gas station had natural gas pumps. Demand shoots through the roof and we're no longer able to claim that it's a cheaper alternative to gasoline.
This isn't even taking into account what it would do to other uses of natural gas -- such as heating homes during the winter months. Many Americans are already struggling to pay heating bills in the dead of winter... and having the demand for that natural gas spread out to running our cars and trucks won't do anything to help those folks.
But, perhaps the lowered demand for electricity production will ultimately balance out the rising demand for vehicle fuel. Maybe, maybe not... but it's definitely an issue which his plan doesn't take any steps to address.
But, at least ol' T-bone does recognize that his plan is only a temporary solution to a problem which needs a lot more work. He states that the plan can "buy us time" until we work out better and cheaper ways of powering our everyday lives. And as far as band-aids go, this one looks to be one of the better plans out there.
I recommend checking out the plan, and if you like what you see, sign up on his site! Forget that T-bone has considerable holdings in Natural Gas and stands to make a ton of money off it... Good ideas should be rewarded, and at least he's got a level of foresight to realize that drilling in ANWR isn't going to make a lick's bit of difference. And diverting $700 billion a year from foreign countries to American infrastructure and jobs can't hurt, either.
So, I'm pickin' Pickens' plan... and stickin' to it... for now.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
The Free-Fall in Fertility
According to studies and continued observation by local endocrinologists, the men of mid-Missouri are undergoing a crash in sperm levels. The problem started cropping up in the mid-1990s, and was cemented during a 1999 study which compared healthy sperm levels between major metropolitan areas. For use in comparison, Columbia, MO was used to help establish a baseline, assuming that the presence of fewer toxic pollutants would lead to higher, healthier levels.
However, it was not to be. Columbia residents' levels maxed out at 57% of the levels of males in New York City, for example; observe the graph at the right for more detail. Most stunning is that Missouri men came from different backgrounds and lifestyles, were of varied ages and professions, and were both long-term and short-term residents of Columbia.
Researchers participating in the 1999 study reexamined Missouri sperm and subjected it to detailed tests for pesticides and chemicals known to be in use in the region. Three pesticides were found to have statistically significant links with the low sperm counts, with two more possible contributors identified as well. One of these pesticides, diazinon, was banned from residential use in 2004, yet still allowed to be used in agriculture. Whatever the case, a follow-up study was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control, with results expected this summer. We will be following this closely, rest assured, for professional and personal reasons.
As the researchers in the article state, blaming one chemical or one pesticide is likely in error. Much more likely are the complex and subtle interactions between varying doses of several chemicals incipient to the lifestyle in the region, coupled with other environmental and lifestyle factors. It is impossible to predict how cocktails of chemicals administered over a lifetime in low doses will interact within the human body. If you would like to know more on this kind of research, check out the research on chemicals in adults, newborns, and pets.
But let us be clear- this is more than likely not a mid-Missouri problem. Whatever the cause is, it is highly possible that these results could be repeated throughout the mid-America region. If there are demonstrable links between pesticide use and low fertility in males, this is something that demands our immediate attention. We will be awaiting the CDC report, and hope to talk about this more in the future.
However, it was not to be. Columbia residents' levels maxed out at 57% of the levels of males in New York City, for example; observe the graph at the right for more detail. Most stunning is that Missouri men came from different backgrounds and lifestyles, were of varied ages and professions, and were both long-term and short-term residents of Columbia.Researchers participating in the 1999 study reexamined Missouri sperm and subjected it to detailed tests for pesticides and chemicals known to be in use in the region. Three pesticides were found to have statistically significant links with the low sperm counts, with two more possible contributors identified as well. One of these pesticides, diazinon, was banned from residential use in 2004, yet still allowed to be used in agriculture. Whatever the case, a follow-up study was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control, with results expected this summer. We will be following this closely, rest assured, for professional and personal reasons.
As the researchers in the article state, blaming one chemical or one pesticide is likely in error. Much more likely are the complex and subtle interactions between varying doses of several chemicals incipient to the lifestyle in the region, coupled with other environmental and lifestyle factors. It is impossible to predict how cocktails of chemicals administered over a lifetime in low doses will interact within the human body. If you would like to know more on this kind of research, check out the research on chemicals in adults, newborns, and pets.
But let us be clear- this is more than likely not a mid-Missouri problem. Whatever the cause is, it is highly possible that these results could be repeated throughout the mid-America region. If there are demonstrable links between pesticide use and low fertility in males, this is something that demands our immediate attention. We will be awaiting the CDC report, and hope to talk about this more in the future.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Energy in the USA: Temporary Measures vs. Systemic Problems
For years, the SUV has served as a particularly potent symbol of American consumption and excess; it seemed to be fueled on hubris alone, considering our willingness to persist with such maddeningly inefficient vehicles used for such ill-suited purposes. I'll never forget rolling into Home Depot one day, and seeing a new, blinged-out H2 with the vanity plate "8 MPG." Oh, dear driver, haven't you heard- do not taunt the automotive gods? Well, consider that thunder called down from on high. By now, you have surely heard that GM is downsizing production of SUVs in the face of widespread consumer migration (panicked flight?) to more efficient vehicles. Plants will be closed, positions will be eliminated, and stunningly, the Hummer division is likely to be spun off from the GM marque, if anyone can be found willing to take on that albatross. In effect, GM is stating that the business model of large, inefficient vehicles is no longer a viable way to do business in this new landscape. Rapidly losing market share to more fuel efficient vehicles, particularly those from overseas, GM has taken a look at the marketplace and reached a painful conclusion. According to CEO Rick Wagoner, "These higher gasoline prices are changing consumer behavior and rapidly," said Wagoner. "We don't think this is a temporary spike or shift. We think it is permanent."
That is a major leap, and a huge realization by one of our largest automotive companies. There will always be a niche in the market for SUVs and pickups, but that's just it- a niche. The days of pickups and SUVs lining the nearest big-box parking lot are numbered.
And so we turn to Washington for guidance in these tough times. President Bush, rock us with some wisdom. How can we escape this potential death knell for unrestrained gasoline consumption, that which underpins our whole economy and serves to exacerbate these economic strains we all suffer? How will we navigate our way from here?:
Bush, reaching back to the earliest days of his administration, resurrected GOP demands for new drilling in the Alaska wilderness, fewer restrictions on oil refineries and other measures aimed at lowering fuel prices through higher production.
Sigh. Members of Congress, what say you?
"Only President Bush could allow Big Oil to write our nation's energy policy," said Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) responded, "It's clear that, on the production side of the equation, this new majority is not interested in doing anything."
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and tit-for-tat makes the whole world complacent. And all the while, oil companies are making record profits while crying out for greater refinery capacity and access to domestic oil reserves.
This, to me, seems like a lot of old solutions to new problems, new realities and unavoidable truths. The elephant in the corner that no one, not Congress, the Administration, or the two men vying to lead the next one, want to step up and accept responsibility for the fact that energy consumption in the US is out of control, and drastic measures need to be undertaken to alleviate the pressure. We need leadership to focus the on the issue that Alternatives Must Be Sought, and the systemic problem of energy consumption will not be alleviated by any of the whole rack of half-measures dreamed up by those in power. Not gas-tax holidays, not clean coal, not CAFE rules that take effect in 20years, none of that.
We talk a lot about increasing supply to match demand. Why not approach it from another angle? Why isn't there serious discussion on reducing demand? As the article states, while increased coal capacity creates more greenhouses gases, and nuclear plants create lethal waste, the only byproduct of "negawatt" projects are increased wealth. While there are several problems with large-scale energy reduction efforts, there are still huge opportunities for investment and profit by companies positioned to take advantage. Reducing demand through projects such as LEED construction standards, appliance efficiency, and urban planning innovation are a start. Not more, not less- a step in the right direction.
No one wants the economy to be torn to shreds in a rapid switch to alternative energies, so if that is the case, we had better get started on that switch now, while it can still be palatable and advantageous. Let's start with reducing our demand on a large scale, more than just using better lightbulbs or EnergyStar refrigerators. Keep going with that, and don't take the easy way out. This does not mean switching out Saudi oil for Louisiana Coast oil or oil shale from Utah- just another band-aid. Let's take this energy effort all the way. Let's not run up to the edge, screech to a stop, and convince ourselves that we've done all we can do. Let's see this one through.
It's been said before, so all that means to me is that I don't have to find the link here- but it's time to cut the subsidies to oil companies and send that money to investing in a new energy infrastructure. Wind, solar, tidal, you name it, we need a much more diverse portfolio. Subsidize the development of hybrid or clean cars that actually fill the needs of American customers- vehicles that can do the work on the farm, or haul our goods cross-country, and keep them affordable for the common man and woman. Your Prius is not up to the task. Furthermore, it's time to put some kind of financial incentive on reducing energy consumption at the home, municipal, or state level. Yes, by 'incentive' that might mean 'disincentive.' That's how it works.
As it were, we actually have a case study to draw from. I originally wrote about this on my other blog, but the city of Juneau, Alaska recently had some severe power difficulties. After avalanches severely hampered the ability of power companies to send electricity to the city, rates rose sky-high. With enough forewarning, residents of Juneau were able to cut their power consumption by 30%.
In one week. The entire city. Encouraging, to say the least, and it speaks volume to the abilities we have to reduce consumption with the right incentives.
Think about the money to be made on all these possibilities. Think about the kind of investment that is possible, even for those rooted in the old energy economy. This is how we have to view the problem- not even as a problem, but a grand opportunity to preserve and enhance our way of life. It's not about limping along to the next season, hoping that supply will stay stable, and the economy will allow us to keep doing things as they have always been done. The world is changing far too quickly to count on that. It's about finding a new way to live, and a new way to organize our economy. If we do it right, we will all win.
We just need to shut up, face up to it, and try. Shall we?
Monday, June 9, 2008
The Geography of High Gas Prices
Looks like it's going to be a gasoline-themed week this week; it's on your minds, it's definitely on ours, so let's run with it, shall we?
Today's view comes from the International Herald Tribune, observing how although the national average is now over $4.00/gallon, the pain at the pump is much more acute in rural regions across the US.
People are giving up meat so they can buy fuel. Gasoline theft is rising. And drivers are running out of gas more often, leaving their cars by the side of the road until they can scrape together gasoline money.
The disparity between rural America and the rest of the country is a matter of simple home economics. Nationwide, Americans now spend about 4 percent of their take-home income on gasoline. By contrast, in some counties in the Mississippi Delta, that figure has surpassed 13 percent.
As a result, gasoline expenses are rivaling what families spend on food and housing.
The article explains many factors that led to this standard. Rural areas are by nature spread wide and far-flung, with many workers having long commutes over less-maintained roads, and often in older, larger vehicles with suitable awful mileage. Jobs are scarce enough in rural areas, and workers may have little choice but to seek work hours away. Economists are saying that if this keeps up, it could accelerate the loss of population and tax base to urban jobs, even reaching the point where working less would be the most economically viable choice for those that remain.
It's a pretty dicey, touch-and-go situation. I don't know if any readers out there want to offer their input, but I know I'd like to hear it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
